I would say that your need to control what others think is the issue here.

And i suppose when i demonstrate against homophobic bigots, i am an evil tought-controller as well.
Note that i never actually did this, since it's not that necessary nowadays.

No it is not, you are letting your bias and predjudice control you.

It's the very textbook-definition of negative reinforcement. It's right there in my textbook.
I suggest that you look into one as well.
Actually, the term "postive/negative reinforcement" is a bit complicated. But negative reinforcement is more appropriate here, since it is "an increase in the future frequency of a behavior when the consequence is the removal of an aversive stimulus".
Since the parents are instructed to present a negative stimulus that has to be removed by an action (playing with male toys), this is a negative reinforcement. Zucker doesn't focus on positive consequences for such behavior, this is negative reinforcement.

Aside from that, he also uses punishment, which is different from negative reinforcement. Negative reinforcement is when your actions remove a bad influence (say, pressing a button turns off a loud noise). Punishment is when an action causes a negative stimulus (pressing a button turns on a loud noise).
He mostly uses type II punishment - playing with a female toy will result in the removal of the toy. But in "severe" cases, he also uses type one.

As i said, if you had any clue about basic psychology, you would know this.

Nice strawman.

Please point out where i say its a bad thing, in fact i did say ealier that every responsable parent on the planet has done what he does.

And i need no parenting advise from a soon to be neutered wannabe female.

And yet you insist that he doesn't use it - despite it being a textbook-definition of negative reinforcement. You most likely do so because you know as much about psychology as everyone else - nothing.

I clearly stated i dislike you, but as you live fully within in your gender issue i do not find it supprising you consider that a dislike for all transgenders everywhere.......damn your such a arrogant ass.

You stated that you dislike me and attack me - because i am transsexual:

I clearly stated i dislike you, but as you live fully within in your gender issue i do not find it supprising you consider that a dislike for all transgenders everywhere.......damn your such a arrogant ass.

Your own words.

Dismissed outright..........correct.

And they did not involve any accusations of pedophilia......oh erm but some did......

The drivel is yours.

And because a single person (or group) does something, every person (or group) did it!. Or not. This is called a hasty generalization fallacy.
And i note that you did not provide any source for your claim.

Saying "it's artificial and therefore it is not the same" is perfectly scientific.

No it's not. Scientists do not do that. Else, show that they do.

Actually that is how you wish to parcel me up as, i told you i dislike you cos of you but you insist i dislike you cos you are transgender and therefore i hate all trqansgendered....

Guess what - i say that because you yourself said it:

as such im insulting you because you are transgendered...

Again, your very own words.

It is you who cannot get past it pal not me, you could be as gender stable as me and you would still be a lying, manipulative asshole.

Many of your statements are, yes. Such as claiming that every transwoman is a deranged liar. Or do you think that any transwomen would agree with you there? Well, it's possible - but certainly not many, and certainly no community.

Concession accepted.

When you have spoken to all and have been told you can speak for all get back to me.

That is just ignorant. And a demand to prove the negative. In other words, completely illogical.

You need to learn how to read...il point out what you missed in your delusion of tranny hate.

Yaawn. Got anything new?

It is clear to any nonfoaming at the mouth chip on his shoulder paranoid persecution complex lunatic what i am saying so im not supprised you missed it.

And i suppose you never said that:

as such im insulting you because you are transgendered...

Oh, wait. You did.

I am clearly pointing out your delusion, but then considering your total obsession its understandable you would only see the last few words rather than the entire context.

Actually, i would like you to provide a definition of "delusion". Just to be sure that you know what you are talking about.

And i suppose when i demonstrate against homophobic bigots, i am an evil tought-controller as well.
Note that i never actually did this, since it's not that necessary nowadays.

Well i was in soho this year for the party with a few of my gay buddies and others, admittedly it was over confusion regarding a "free bar" that turned out to be a "alcohol free bar" but the mistake was understandable and made by one of the gay guys.

Still nice strawman.

It's the very textbook-definition of negative reinforcement. It's right there in my textbook.
I suggest that you look into one as well.
Actually, the term "postive/negative reinforcement" is a bit complicated. But negative reinforcement is more appropriate here, since it is "an increase in the future frequency of a behavior when the consequence is the removal of an aversive stimulus".
Since the parents are instructed to present a negative stimulus that has to be removed by an action (playing with male toys), this is a negative reinforcement. Zucker doesn't focus on positive consequences for such behavior, this is negative reinforcement.

Wrong again, the part of the treatment you and others focus on MAY have simularities but it is not the whole treatment nor does your predjudice allow you to include the encoragment to play with other toys.

As i said, if you had any clue about basic psychology, you would know this.

Bullshit, at moast he initially exchanges one type of toys for another and encorages the use of the new toys, and it is totally differant from giving a child the choice of each toy over and over and then punishing them by taking them away.

You are distorting the facts as per usual.

And yet you insist that he doesn't use it - despite it being a textbook-definition of negative reinforcement. You most likely do so because you know as much about psychology as everyone else - nothing.

I know enough to tell me your distortion of his work does not apply in reality.

You stated that you dislike me and attack me - because i am transsexual:

I clearly stated i dislike you, but as you live fully within in your gender issue i do not find it supprising you consider that a dislike for all transgenders everywhere.......damn your such a arrogant ass.

Your own words.

Yup clearly describing your delusion, il bold the important part.

And because a single person (or group) does something, every person (or group) did it!.

Show me where i caim that?.

No it's not. Scientists do not do that. Else, show that they do.

You mean show that the word "artificial" is used by scientists, doctors ect to denote a differance between say a "artificial" organ or material and a natural one?........

It is a common term pal.

Guess what - i say that because you yourself said it:

as such im insulting you because you are transgendered...

Again, your very own words.

A total distortion snipped out of context, you are getting desperate.

As per you saying so.

Yup.

Many of your statements are, yes. Such as claiming that every transwoman is a deranged liar.

I say EVERY?, show me please.

And i suppose you never said that:

as such im insulting you because you are transgendered...

Oh, wait. You did.

WEEEE a massive out of context snip........how wonderful you resort to such obvious and disgracful tactics......................here is the full quote in context.

I know you are a liar and a manipulator i know you have insulted me....now im saying that is because of who you are.....you claim you are doing it cos you are transgendered and as such im insulting you because you are transgendered...

Just look at what you are willing to do and how low you are willing to stoop, you are exactly the same type of individual who made those disgusting and baseless pedophilia accusations against Zucker.

HERE IS MY POST FROM BEFORE JMS RESTARTED THINGS SO IL JUST POST IT AGAIN AS NOTHING HAS CHANGED APART FROM THE FACT WE HAVE LEARNED JUST HOW LOW SERAFINA WILL SINK:

THE FEMALE BRAIN IN A MALE BODY DESIRE.

The evidence AGAINST MTF transgenders having a female brain from or prior to birth is overwhelming, a unfortunate fact for those who wish it to be otherwise so much that they make claims saying so over and over as seen below.

This is one fine example of this - identity is essentially defined by the brain, and a transwomans brain is simply female.

Not only do we know from MRI brain scans how female brains are structured differantly from male brains and that MTF do not have female structured brains but male ones, but we also know that prolonged use of hormone treatment does cause changes in MTF transgender brains TOWARDS a more female structure.

These two facts cleary show that they were not female brains in the first place, firstly by the scan showing so and secondly by the fact that the drugs could not change the structure towards female if they were female in the first place rather than male.

HOWEVER

We do have indications that a small area of the transgender brain may have a anomoly that may effect it early in development, but given the way and amount the brain develops afterwards there is no way it could be interpreted as a female brain or even close to one.

Referances and links to the studies are available in this thread and have been discussed.

GID TEENS/ADULTS

Any viewpoint which argues for inevitability for any trait without regard for the environment, is trying to turn the clock back and has a very large burden of proof because of the known dual influences, nature and nurture, which exist for all human actions. In addition to these two factors there is a third, chance, which is underappreciated, and in many cases predominant. This may be chance occurrences which have a profound influence, or highly individualistic responses to influences, which rarely would react that way on others.

NOTE:
I shall not go into the addictive qualities of the drugs taken by transgenders at this time or the possible repercussions of such effects on the opinions/desires of those taking them over a short or long term.

While the treatment of older individuals claiming to be transgender is problematic in and of itself due to what is known to the psychological community as the "Feminine Essence Narrative", a construct of imaginative stories created by transgenders in order to fit the criteria for SRS surgery once the medical community published its guidelines.

However in 2008, the Canadian sexologist Ray Blanchard presented the idea in the form of a theory in a commentary entitled "Deconstructing the Feminine Essence Narrative" wherein he lists what he considers to be "the central tenets of the feminine essence theory", and then refutes each of his tenets:
1. Male-to-female transsexuals are, in some literal sense and not just in a figurative sense, women inside men’s bodies.
2. There is only one type of woman, therefore there can be only one type of (true) male-to-female transsexual.
3. Apparent differences among male-to-female transsexuals are relatively superficial and irrelevant to the basic unity of the transsexual syndrome.
4. Male-to-female transsexuals have no unique, behavioral or psychological characteristics that are absent in typical men and women.

Ray Blanchard immediatly became the target for hate mail and abuse by individuals within the transgender community for pointing these facts out, however his qualifications speak for themselves:

He received his A.B. in psychology from the University of Pennsylvania in 1967 and his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois in 1973.

He conducted postdoctoral research at Dalhousie University until 1976, when he accepted a position as a clinical psychologist at the Ontario Correctional Institute in Brampton, Ontario, Canada (a suburb of Toronto).

There, Blanchard met Kurt Freund, who became his mentor. Freund was conducting research in chemical castration for sex offenders.

In 1980, he joined the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry (now part of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health).

In 1995 Blanchard was named Head of Clinical Sexology Services in the Law and Mental Health Programme of the CAMH, and he serves as a Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto.

He served on the American Psychiatric Association DSM-IV Subcommittee on Gender Identity Disorders and was named to the DSM-5 committee.

According to the Web of Science, Blanchard's scientific articles have been cited more than 1800 times, with an h-index of 27.

GID CHILDREN

Highly successful cures for GID children have been recorded by some of the worlds most renowned sexologists and psycologists.

Dr. Kenneth Zucker.

A Jewish American-Canadian psychologist and sexologist, and head of the child and adolescent gender identity clinic at Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. Based on his collaboration with Susan Bradley.

Zucker is considered an international authority in the field of gender identity disorder in children (GDIC) and in adolescents. His clinic has probably diagnosed more GDIC than any other facility in the world.

Zucker is also a Professor with the Departments of Psychiatry and Psychology at the University of Toronto.

He was named editor-in-chief of Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2001.

In 2007 Zucker was chosen to be a member of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Gender Identity, Gender Variance, and Intersex Conditions, and in 2008 was named chair of the American Psychiatric Association workgroup on "Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders" for the 2012 edition of the DSM-5.

He previously served on workgroups for the DSM-IV and the DSM-IV-TR.

Dr. Kenneth Zucker has reported success rates of 80-90% in GID children and has treated over 500 preadolescent gender-variant children over the last 30 years.

However again instead of being met by happy inquiry by the transgender community he has met only abuse and even accusations of child abuse and harm.

In May 2008, 11,000+ people signed a petition (9000 electronically, 2000 paper) to the American Psychiatric Association asking that Kenneth Zucker be removed from the DSM process because of his support of reparative therapy on children and because of allegedly falsified research data. The APA refused to even receive such a absurd petition, let alone act on it.

As can be personally testified to on this very board some even go so far as to accuse the APA and other governing bodies of the psycological community of ignoring Dr. Kenneth Zucker's alledged child abuse or even supporting it because of personal friendships.........mainly in order to discredit his qualifications and promotions gained BECAUSE of his fine work helping GID children and others in that area of study.

I have to say on a personal note that such tactics concern me, to claim that the higher levels of the medical community either ignores or supports child abuse is a paranoia of extreme levels, or to make such a horrid accusation out of rage because of a dislike of the results that ultimatly help these children speaks volumes.

Environmental influence

Studies also show influence of the environment ver much supporting the Dr. Kenneth Zucker and Blanchard position.

(Glover et al. 2009) developed a model of sexual orientation development using GLBT subjects. This in some way tried to explain the transgender people’s “orientation”, particularly by including sexual experiences in their history. This suggested some environmental factors are also involved.

(Levine and Solomon, 2009) Noted that transgender mtf people seemed to have lots of feelings. The theory advanced was that men with lots of feelings might observe this in themselves, observe it seemed rather typical of women, hence think they are women trapped in a man’s body.

(Daskalos, 1998) and (Weyers et al. 2008) commented on the very sudden change of sexual orientation frequently reported by transgender people after treatment is commenced. In view of the alleged difficulty of changing sexual orientation in general, this seemed very unlikely, and argued at least a strong influence of environmental factors, and similarly the stability of the sexual identity comes into question.

CONCLUSIONS

I started this discussion with the opinion that if you wanna be a woman then chop it off and hasve done with it as long as you are not hurting anybody. However while my personal code regarding that philosophy in all things has not changed my opinion of it doing harm has.

I have seen that the traditional science, the psychology and other issues show clearly that supporting it could be and likely is perpetuating the sufferng of those who could be treated at a early age.

By supporting it i am also supporting those who think that doctors at the highest levels of their profession AND the governing boards are perposfully harming children in some sort of cover up, either because of severe paranoia or because of sheer loathing that their "WISH" to be "essentially female" is clearly refuted.

This thread and the vast amount of research i have done has opened my eyes to a real concern regarding it and some of the individuals trying to gain support for hate campaigns against the medical community that is trying to help them.

Well i was in soho this year for the party with a few of my gay buddies and others, admittedly it was over confusion regarding a "free bar" that turned out to be a "alcohol free bar" but the mistake was understandable and made by one of the gay guys.

Still nice strawman.

Given that i did not excuse you of homophobia (apparently, you do not understand the concept of an analogy), this is a complete red herring.
Still, the "i have gay friends!!" is just so cliche that it is hilarious regardless of that.

Wrong again, the part of the treatment you and others focus on MAY have simularities but it is not the whole treatment nor does your predjudice allow you to include the encoragment to play with other toys.

No, that IS the whole treatment - get the child away from the evil feminine behavior.
Otherwise, present evidence to the contrary.

Bullshit, at moast he initially exchanges one type of toys for another and encorages the use of the new toys, and it is totally differant from giving a child the choice of each toy over and over and then punishing them by taking them away.

You are distorting the facts as per usual.

The first is negative reinforcement. If you knew at least basic psychology, you would know that.

I know enough to tell me your distortion of his work does not apply in reality.

Given that you have demonstrated that you do not even understand the basic concept of psychological reinforcement, you can hardly claim any understanding at all.

Show me where i caim that?.

Right where you claim that all complaints against Zucker contained accusations of pedophilia.
They didn't. Just because someone accused him of that, you can not dismiss the other accusations as well.

You mean show that the word "artificial" is used by scientists, doctors ect to denote a differance between say a "artificial" organ or material and a natural one?........

It is a common term pal.

Generally, scientists do not use fallacies. When describing something, they describe it's state first and it's origion second.
Given that most things (with the exception of genitalia) are completely identical to breasts etc. that grew without hormonal supplements, your point is just fallacious.

A total distortion snipped out of context, you are getting desperate.

It's hardly snipped out of context, given that the context does not contradict it.

As per you saying so.

Yup.

In other words, you admit that you are just making stuff up now.

I say EVERY?, show me please.

You claimed that transwomen generally lie about the "transgender narrative". Therefore, you accused them, as a group, of being liars.

WEEEE a massive out of context snip........how wonderful you resort to such obvious and disgracful tactics......................here is the full quote in context.

As i said above, the context doesn't change it.

Just look at what you are willing to do and how low you are willing to stoop, you are exactly the same type of individual who made those disgusting and baseless pedophilia accusations against Zucker.

Hey, look at that. Kor actually tries to post an argument. Let's see how or if he succeeds.

HERE IS MY POST FROM BEFORE JMS RESTARTED THINGS SO IL JUST POST IT AGAIN AS NOTHING HAS CHANGED APART FROM THE FACT WE HAVE LEARNED JUST HOW LOW SERAFINA WILL SINK:

In other words, he is just repeating himself. Not an encouraging start.

THE FEMALE BRAIN IN A MALE BODY DESIRE.

The evidence AGAINST MTF transgenders having a female brain from or prior to birth is overwhelming, a unfortunate fact for those who wish it to be otherwise so much that they make claims saying so over and over as seen below.

He is right in regard to the brain being completely like that of a ciswoman.
He is NOT right that there is overwhelming evidence that transwomen do not start out with a female-gender brain. There is evidence that they are, but the responsible part has not yet been found. He tries to use lack of knowledge as evidence, which is an enormous distortion of the scientific method.

Not only do we know from MRI brain scans how female brains are structured differantly from male brains and that MTF do not have female structured brains but male ones, but we also know that prolonged use of hormone treatment does cause changes in MTF transgender brains TOWARDS a more female structure.

This is his own admission i was talking about earlier. He claims that a transwomen does not have a female brain - but with hormones, she has! He uses that as evidence if it is convenient for him, but if it isn't he denies it.

These two facts cleary show that they were not female brains in the first place, firstly by the scan showing so and secondly by the fact that the drugs could not change the structure towards female if they were female in the first place rather than male.

Again, he is attacking a strawman (or a straw brain?). My argument does not rely on an initial completely female brain. Instead, it relies on a brain with female gender identity. We know that most differences between male and female brain are nor responsible for gender identity - and we do not yet know what exactly is responsible for it. Again, he tries to use lack of knowledge as evidence.

We do have indications that a small area of the transgender brain may have a anomoly that may effect it early in development, but given the way and amount the brain develops afterwards there is no way it could be interpreted as a female brain or even close to one.

Here he admits that there is a difference, which he calls derogatorily an anomaly.
But that very "anomaly" might very well be responsible for the gender identity. That is all my argument relies upon, yet when i mention it he denies the relevance of that anomaly.

NOTE:
I shall not go into the addictive qualities of the drugs taken by transgenders at this time or the possible repercussions of such effects on the opinions/desires of those taking them over a short or long term.

Here he introduces a complete strawman to the rest of his argument as a red herring. I shall bite and debunk it regardless.

As with everything else about psychology, Kor does not understand the basics about addiciton.
But let's see. There are basically two types of addiction:
One towards an addictive substance such as alcohol which has a physical addictive component, and one on a certain behavior.

The first is defined as: "When an individual persists in use of alcohol or other drugs despite problems related to use of the substance, substance dependence may be diagnosed. Compulsive and repetitive use may result in tolerance to the effect of the drug and withdrawal symptoms when use is reduced or stopped. This, along with Substance Abuse are considered Substance Use Disorders...."
Well, his argument fails at the bolded parts.
First of all, hormonal treatment is neither compulsive nor particularly repetitive. There is no compulsion to take them other than the common sense to take ones medication, and there is no repetition other than the medical necessity.
One could compare it to a diabetic taking his medicaments when necessary - he doesn't feel a particular psychological compulsion to take them, and he only does so out of medical necessity.
Second of all, the body does not build up a tolerance to the effect. Generally, hormonal treatment stays at a steady level once the optimal dose is found. This is a huge difference to an addiction, where the dose has by definition to be increased constantly.

He already fails at two critical points. He might further argue with the withdrawal symptoms, but keep the analogy to a diabetic in mind - he will also suffer from consequences if he does not take his medication. But these are entirely physical and not psychological - the body just lacks a substance it needs, and a natural substance in both cases.

Behavioral addictions do not actually have a good definition like drug addictions.
But generally, he still fails at two basic things:
Lack of compulsion and lack of tolerance buildup.
A transwoman has no particular compulsion to wear female clothing etc. She wants to do it, but wanting something is not the same as an addictive compulsion.
Second of all, there is no tolerance buildup. He might argue that transwomen start out on a "low level" of femininity and go higher and higher - but he fails to see that this is not a process in perpetuity, like it is with behavioral addictions. A gambling addict will spend more and more time obsessing about gambling - but a transwomen won't spent more and more time obsessing about being a woman. She will be a woman all the time, but neither does she attempt to increase the intensity of that.
Generally, once a transwomen has succeeded in her passing, no increase of intensity happens in her behavior. For addicts, no such "final level" can exist by definition. This is completely dissimilar to addictive behavior.

If Kor knew anything about psychology, he would know that. No scientific body in the world treats transsexuality as an addiction.

While the treatment of older individuals claiming to be transgender is problematic in and of itself due to what is known to the psychological community as the "Feminine Essence Narrative", a construct of imaginative stories created by transgenders in order to fit the criteria for SRS surgery once the medical community published its guidelines.

Again he claims that a large amount of transwomen lies about their feelings and history. This is completely false. In fact what he mentions as "feminine essence narrative"
was originally brought up as a criticism on harsh, sexist criterias that were employed by psychologists. For example, this included that a transwomen had to have a desire to be the typical "submissive housewife" (like in the 50s). Lesbian transwomen were often outright rejected as being transsexual.
The criticism concluded that this narrative is inaccurate because the criteria are inaccurate. It did not do so because all transwomen lief about it. While in fact many did, this was only because the criteria were too strict. Nowadays, it is generally not necessary to construct any lies at all, and psychologists are actually attentive if one's history matches the outdated narrative too closely. Generally, a person is just too dynamic to fit into this outdated scheme.

However in 2008, the Canadian sexologist Ray Blanchard presented the idea in the form of a theory in a commentary entitled "Deconstructing the Feminine Essence Narrative" wherein he lists what he considers to be "the central tenets of the feminine essence theory", and then refutes each of his tenets:

Again, Kor is appealing to something that is mostly only accepted in North America.

1. Male-to-female transsexuals are, in some literal sense and not just in a figurative sense, women inside men’s bodies.
2. There is only one type of woman, therefore there can be only one type of (true) male-to-female transsexual.
3. Apparent differences among male-to-female transsexuals are relatively superficial and irrelevant to the basic unity of the transsexual syndrome.
4. Male-to-female transsexuals have no unique, behavioral or psychological characteristics that are absent in typical men and women.

You will note that these are just claims that he supposedly disproved. As always, Kor provides no evidence.

In essence, these criteria still apply - and are not what is generally called the "essence narrative".
Criteria one is true because essentially, identity is what matters.
Two is true because that "type of woman" is diverse enough to encompass every sub-type of woman. A butch-lesbian is a woman exactly like a hetereo-housewife is - both are woman. Being part of a sub-category doesn't remove you from the main category.
Three is true for the same reason - regardless of whether a transwoman is hetero or homosexual or any other differences, she is still a woman - just like ciswomen with those differences are still women.
No unique behavior is presented. Autogynophilia is also present in ciswomen and therefore not unique to transwomen.

Ray Blanchard immediatly became the target for hate mail and abuse by individuals within the transgender community for pointing these facts out, however his qualifications speak for themselves:

This is a fallacious appeal to authority - somewhat in reverse, but still the same thing.

You will note that Kor does not present any model of transsexuality at all, nor would such a model support his prejudice that transwomen are not women in any way.

GID CHILDREN

Highly successful cures for GID children have been recorded by some of the worlds most renowned sexologists and psycologists.

As i pointed out earlier, the basic failure here is that GID encompasses more than transsexuality. It is basically any deviation in sexual or gender behavior that is considered normal - most of it is due to homosexuality.
The DSM IV itself states that most children with GID (over 80%) turn out to be actually homosexual. Zucker achieves similar rates - which means that he achieves no change at all.

The quote is just another appeal to authority. No work of Zucker is presented.

Dr. Kenneth Zucker has reported success rates of 80-90% in GID children and has treated over 500 preadolescent gender-variant children over the last 30 years.

As i said above, this rate is near-identical to that that just happens naturally. Kor likes to claim that Zucker only selects the "most severe cases" and that he therefore achieves actual success, but there is no actual link between being homo- or transsexual and the severity of GID. Homosexual children can be as severe as transsexual children in their GID and vice versa. Severity is therefore not a way to differ between the two.

However again instead of being met by happy inquiry by the transgender community he has met only abuse and even accusations of child abuse and harm.

This is again an appeal to authority.

As can be personally testified to on this very board some even go so far as to accuse the APA and other governing bodies of the psycological community of ignoring Dr. Kenneth Zucker's alledged child abuse or even supporting it because of personal friendships.........mainly in order to discredit his qualifications and promotions gained BECAUSE of his fine work helping GID children and others in that area of study.

And also an ad hominem attack.

Kor constantly ignored the fact that Zuckers results are not confirmed by any independent study. Given that he has worked for decades now, this is extremely odd - normally, every single study will over time be confirmed if it's results are correct. Only if it's results are incorrect no such confirmation will happen.
Despite being constantly challenged to do so, Kor never showed any independent verification of Zuckers work. Personally, i was not capable of finding such a study.
Note that peer review merely looks for obvious errors in the application of the scientific method and does not contain independent research-
Without such verification, a hypothesis can not possibly be called a theory or even reliable.

Studies also show influence of the environment ver much supporting the Dr. Kenneth Zucker and Blanchard position.

The work of neither has been independently confirmed.
Furthermore, an environmental influences neither supports Kors prejudice nor does it change anything about the main theory about transsexuality. A cis-persons identity is also influenced by environmental factors, which will change the exact expression of their gender identity. Yet it has been shown that no amount of environmental influence can change a cis-persons gender identity. Yet their hypothesis demands just that - that a childs gender identity can be changed by "wrong" influences.

Generally their theory fails to explain how transsexual people can exist who were not subject to such "wrong" environmental influences in childhood. In fact, a majority of transsexual people were not subject to them - those of older age certainly not, due to the strict standing towards children back then. And even those of younger age (20+) are generally not subject to such influence.
And not all transsexual people display GID in childhood as well, yet another descriptive failure.
They propose an additional cause that is related to "extreme homosexuality". But that does not explain transsexual people who were not subject to environmental influences and are not attracted to their own sex (e.g. non-GID lesbian transwomen such as myself).

The model "born with an unchangeable gender identity" has no problems to explain any of those. Since it is currently the model with the higher descriptive value and is supported by more, independent studies it is the superior model.

I started this discussion with the opinion that if you wanna be a woman then chop it off and hasve done with it as long as you are not hurting anybody. However while my personal code regarding that philosophy in all things has not changed my opinion of it doing harm has.

This already displays ignorance or prejudice - "chopping off" is an entirely inccurate term and often used in a derogatory way.

I have seen that the traditional science, the psychology and other issues show clearly that supporting it could be and likely is perpetuating the sufferng of those who could be treated at a early age.

In other words, you do not want to help people, you want to supress them - for their "own good".
That ignores that Zucker&co epxress their full support for adult transsexuals such as myself.

By supporting it i am also supporting those who think that doctors at the highest levels of their profession AND the governing boards are perposfully harming children in some sort of cover up, either because of severe paranoia or because of sheer loathing that their "WISH" to be "essentially female" is clearly refuted.

This is yet another appeal to authority.

This thread and the vast amount of research i have done has opened my eyes to a real concern regarding it and some of the individuals trying to gain support for hate campaigns against the medical community that is trying to help them.

You have only displayed that you did research on transsexual brain structure. You did not show that you did any research on psychology or Zuckers/Blanchardsd work. You did not present any studies by them and you demonstrated that you were ignorant of basic psychology such as behavioral reinforcement and the mechanics of addiction.

Generally, your argument is very poor. You are constantly appealing to Zuckers and Blanchards authority and attack their critics - instead of displaying the quality of their own work and the supportive evidence of independent scientists (the latter apparently does not exist). That would be the proper way to present an argument, yet you have not done it since we were debating brain structure, where you already displayed your desire to dismiss evidence that contradicted yours.

Generally, you display a lot of negativity towards transsexuality. You constantly focus on the apparent harm it does (that harm solely comes from intolerance such yours) and use derogatory words towards transsexual people. You have claimed that they are incapable of making their own decisions and that they are addicts. You have also focused on the small differences of transitioned transwomen towards ciswomen in order to deny them their identity and rights.
You have displayed, over multiple pages now, that you prefer personal insults to presenting evidence. You have a clear pattern of starting these insults once you are challenged to present evidence.

Regardless, i shall challenge you again.
Of utmost importance, you shall bring forth independent verificating evidence for both Blanchards and Zuckers work. Any position they hold or peer review they passed does not replace this requirement, do not try to escape that way.
Furthermore, you shall actually disprove their critics instead of dismissing them with ad-hominem attacks.
And last but not least, you shall present scientific evidence that transwomen are not women. Neither Blanchard nor Zucker claim this, hence you will have to look elsewhere.

This is your duty if you want to engage in honest debate. Dirty fighting with insults and personal attacks do nothing to honor your argument and diminish any impact it might have.

Besides, i tought you wanted to stop posting here? Yet another lie, apparently.

Actually i am now continuing this discussion elsewhere with individuals who are considerably more stable and honest than you, and while they do not agree with some of the things i have said they do not resort to the distortions/strawmen tactics that you do even though they are fully transitioned transexuals.

In fact some of the examples i have shown them of your disgracful distortions regarding my actual comments they find quite disgusting and think you are doing no favors to yourself and your/their position and situation.

They do not like Zucker's "cure" much either although they find the hate tactics of those that made the pedophile claims amoung other things a disgrace that do more harm than good.

They also want to be considered and actually do consider themselves fully female but understand why others may not see them as such, however unlike you they claim not to care as long as they are not insulted, disrespected or harrased about it. I was actually shocked at that reasonable attitude after experiancing your ravings and claims of bigotry. After i said i did not think they were the same as my wife and explained my reasons, they actually asked me if i thought of them any LESS as people than my wife for being transgendered or just a little differant and i obviously said just a little differant.

I thought that was a particularly good question to ask and showed a considerable amount of tolerance, understanding and maturity regarding the issue that you sadly lack.

So thanks for the invite to watch you distort, create strawmen and lie about my posts but i now have more mature, reasonable, mentally stable and honest individuals to discuss this with.

Actually i am now continuing this discussion elsewhere with individuals who are considerably more stable and honest than you, and while they do not agree with some of the things i have said they do not resort to the distortions/strawmen tactics that you do even though they are fully transitioned transexuals.

Where? Don't worry, i will not bother with another such "debate".
But your nickname doesn't return any results that are not on a SWvsST-forum, so i can not look at this debate without you providing any links. Neither does a search with "starfleetjedi.net"/"serafina" and "transsexuality.

Furthermore, it is in your interest (if your claim is true) to show that others disagree with me as well.

In fact some of the examples i have shown them of your disgracful distortions regarding my actual comments they find quite disgusting and think you are doing no favors to yourself and your/their position and situation.

They do not like Zucker's "cure" much either although they find the hate tactics of those that made the pedophile claims amoung other things a disgrace that do more harm than good.

And so do i. I never supported any claims that he is a pedophile, you introduced that to this thread.

They also want to be considered and actually do consider themselves fully female but understand why others may not see them as such, however unlike you they claim not to care as long as they are not insulted, disrespected or harrased about it. I was actually shocked at that reasonable attitude after experiancing your ravings and claims of bigotry. After i said i did not think they were the same as my wife and explained my reasons, they actually asked me if i thought of them any LESS as people than my wife for being transgendered or just a little differant and i obviously said just a little differant.

But you DO insult and harras. You have openly admitted to doing so.

I thought that was a particularly good question to ask and showed a considerable amount of tolerance, understanding and maturity regarding the issue that you sadly lack.

So thanks for the invite to watch you distort, create strawmen and lie about my posts but i now have more mature, reasonable, mentally stable and honest individuals to discuss this with.

Unless you back that up, i consider that a big, fat lie.
Just like you (claim to) have considered all transsexual people to be unreasonable.

Where? Don't worry, i will not bother with another such "debate".
But your nickname doesn't return any results that are not on a SWvsST-forum, so i can not look at this debate without you providing any links.

I have no interest in you polluting a reasonable discussion with your ravings, and no i did not use the same nick name as it is not a STvsSW forum.

Furthermore, it is in your interest (if your claim is true) to show that others disagree with me as well.

And so do i. I never supported any claims that he is a pedophile, you introduced that to this thread.

You use the same tactics.

But you DO insult and harras. You have openly admitted to doing so.

I insult you because you are a deranged, manipulative, lying asshole not because you are transgendered.

I already said that i would not join the debate.
You therefore have absolutely no reason not to show me that link.

That you did not use the same nickname, a link result to this thread also shows up no results from any other forum (other than the old thread on SDN and FSTDT). Neither does a search that includes my nickname.
And it is extremely unlikely that you are on a forum that does not show up on Google - how would you have found it in the first place?

It really, really looks like this is just another one of your lies. If you were actually participating on such a forum, you could just link it.
And i wonder how you got on such a forum in the first place. Most of them are pretty exclusive, and the larger ones would show up on a Google search. And even the larger ones usually employ methods to keep random people out, otherwise they will have to deal with quite some Spam.

So, if you want anyone to believe you, post a link or search terms which allow to find that thread.

I already said that i would not join the debate.
You therefore have absolutely no reason not to show me that link.

And your word is worth exactly what to me do you think?.

Apart from you being a total liar it is much more preferable to post the comments and feelings of these two people and how they deal with my points and opinions rather than have you read them and barge in with your deluded ravings and bigotry accusations or just repost them here and create strawmen again.

So no i will not give you a link, and while i did not do so in the first place i will now remember not to refer to you by your online name so you cannot just barge in (thanks for the tip). In fact you are no longer really a part of the discussion or at least not a particularly important part, mearly a referance point and example of the looney fringe.

In other words, you won't give any confirmation that you are actually telling the truth.
Even if you are, you are going to snip posts out from that forum without providing any context. So even if you are telling the truth, you can do whatever you want in order to make you look good.

Well, i suppose if anyone falls for this it's his own fault.

Edit:
Furthermore, a time-limited (last 24 hours) multi-engine search for the possible words that could appear in that thread (this forums name, my name, zucker, treatment, trans, transsexuality, transwoman, wife, equal, female, woman, pedophile and more) did not give any fitting results. That is only possible if that forum is exempt from a google-search, in which case you would have already said so and you would not have found it in the first place.
Extending the timespan changed nothing about that either.

Really, this looks more and more like a lie. It's just not possible to find that mysterious forum, even tough it should.
And if there is no evidence for something, it's normally reasonable to conclude that it doesn't exist.